M'Meekin v. Easton and Others

The pursuer averred that the note was granted on the representation that Mr Easton was the debtor and the other two his cautioners. They did not ask or receive sanction from the congregation for the transaction. Further, Mr Ea-ton on 18th April 1885 received from Mr Alexander Whitelaw a donation of £300 towards the extinction of the debt upon the church, and collected besides other sums to meet the cost of repairs still outstanding. These various subscriptions, however, he failed to intimate to the managers of the congregation.

The pursuer explained that the managers and congregation now declined to pay him any portion of the debt, on the ground that the donation which the late Mr Easton received from Mr Whitelaw for payment of the debt deprived the defenders of all claim to relief at their hands. They averred that the resolutions embodying the proposed arrangement for payment of the sum in question were all passed under essential error Page: 244 ↓

The pursuer pleaded—“(1) The late Reverend Mr Easton, the defender Peter Lusk, and the late Dr David Easton having granted, and being personally liable for the sums due under, the said promissory-note, and the sums sued for with interest being due, the pursuer is entitled to decree as concluded for, with expenses.”

The defenders pleaded—“(2) The promissory-note sued on is not the personal obligation of the defender Peter Lusk and of the now deceased Reverend Thomas Easton and David Easton, and the defenders are therefore entitled to be assoilzied. (4) Separatim —Delegation.”

On 26th July 1888 the Lord Ordinary ( Kinnear ) decerned against the defenders in terms of the conclusions of the summons.